Physical Activity for Quiescent and Mildly Active Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Physical activity (PA) may benefit people with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) by improving immunological response, musculoskeletal function, and psychological health. Aims We distilled available evidence on the efficacy and safety of PA to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and relieve persistent symptoms of fatigue, joint pain, abdominal pain, stress, anxiety, and depression in individuals with quiescent/mild IBD. Methods We searched for trials in eight databases and trial registries. Trials using PA as an adjunct therapy in the management of adults (≥18 years) with quiescent or mild IBD, published in English between 2011 and 2023 were identified. Summary effect estimates were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects model. Results From the 10,862 citations retrieved, we included seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-RCT. There was no evidence of benefit of PA on HRQoL (SMD 0.34, 95%CI −0.08 to 0.77; I2 57%); high heterogeneity was noted among included trials. PA was found to be efficacious in reducing anxiety (SMD −0.35, 95%CI −0.65 to −0.05; I2 0%). There was insufficient evidence to make conclusions regarding changes in fatigue, joint pain, abdominal pain, stress, and depression. All trials deemed physical activity safe. Conclusions PA contributes to reducing anxiety in quiescent/mild IBD. There is marked heterogeneity in methodology among trials investigating PA in adults with quiescent/mild IBD. This review highlights the need for consistent definitions of PA types and intensities in this field of research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".